What is the apocrypha?

[Reader Nilus]

The Apocrypha (as found in the original 1611 KJV Bible) For those who want to read the Apocrypha in the KJV.
Jeff the Finn

 

[d0c markus]

I do not see the difference. By your earlier statment, Paul should have confidence that the Holy Spirit would protect his memory. It seems that you are making exceptions to your own statement in order to justify your beliefs on the canon.

There is a difference. When an entire text is layed to doubt thats serious, when paul makes a fairly common comment that would be made by you or me, that i cannot remember if i did anything or not, it does not lay doubt to an entire biblical text. No exceptions being made, you find me a statement by a NT author stating that he doubts whether his message is accurate or not and i will eat my shoe.

Whether paul remember if he had baptized anyone other than those few people is not significant. But i can see how you would argue differently.

I disagree with your theology on this point, so your question means nothing to me.

It is a valid question, You decided that it would be prudent to compare Judith's sin With Saul, David and Solomon and thats what i was doing. Whether or not you agree with my theology or not doesnt matter, i thought the purpose of this was to discuss it, so that I and anyone else reading it could make an educated decision.

Notice how quickly you try to reconcile these two accounts. Have you tried to reconcile the other "contradictions

I looked at quite a few different commentaries. My explanation is the most widley held, i didnt pull it out of some dark place. What other contradicitions, none were pointed out to me to look at.

You have not looked very hard, then. I will consider posting a link. I am not sure if I wish to do what may become a stumbling block for others.

Understandable, could you PM them to me?

There is a difference between infallible and perfect in historical detail. Consider carefully your logic. It seems that you assume that the Protocanon (The Old Testament without the Deuterocanon) is the word of God, therefore it is without error. That is, any possible error can be explained away. However, you assume the Deuterocanon is not the word of God, and every possible error must actually be an error.

Answer me this: How do you know for certain that Esther, as an example, is the word of God and belongs in the Bible?

Sometimes i get frustrated with this stuff. We can line dance around stuff all day long and it will never end. My purpose is not to discuss accepted canon by both groups its to discuss disputed canon. I would prefer to stick to one.

And yes i think any error can be explained away, after all isnt that what apologetics is all about? Whats not in doubt here is the New Testament, to defend deuterocanon you attack the validity of the the New Testament asking me to defend whatever "errors" there may be.

If you want to do that make another thread, but lets stick to this one instead of dancing around the issues.

 

[d0c markus]

ON a side note, I know im not going to be able to convince you otherwise that its not, and you know that your not going to be able to convince me it is.

So i hope your not taking this personally.

- Mark -

 

[Axion]

There is a difference. When an entire text is layed to doubt thats serious, when paul makes a fairly common comment that would be made by you or me, that i cannot remember if i did anything or not, it does not lay doubt to an entire biblical text. No exceptions being made, you find me a statement by a NT author stating that he doubts whether his message is accurate or not and i will eat my shoe.

Get out the salt and pepper.

1 Cor 7(v10 -) To the married I give this command (not I but the Lord): A wife must not separate from her husband. (v11) But if she does she must remain unmarried or else be reconciled to her husband. And a husband must not divorce his wife. (v12) To the rest I say this (I, not the Lord): - and the letter continues to its end.

Paul here does not seem convinced that his letter is from the Lord. He states only that verses 10 and 11 come from the Lord. He does not seem at all certain that the rest of his letter is inspired (from the Lord). Is the letter from verse 12 on not inspired?

I have never heard of the "errors" in those Books, (Esther etc) can you please list them or give a source and i'll have a look.

Esther also contains "historical and geographical errors" No Queen Esther is known to History. Nor is any Mordechai, or Queen Vashti. Ahasuerus Queen was not deposed, and outlived him. The Land of Agag is unknown at that time...

Daniel contains similar things, for example: Darius the Mede is unknown to history, Belshazzar was not the son of Nebuchadnezzar but of Nabonidus, etc.

The same sort of historical confusion in in Ezra shows King Darius appearing after Xerxes and Artaxerses, although he reigned earlier.

So do we now remove Esther, Daniel and Ezra from the canon?

Further, there are apparent historical errors in the rest of the Bible as well; for example, Matthew 14:3 identifies Herodias as the wife of Herod's brother Philip; Josephus, however, says she was the wife of Herod's other brother Boethus. Matthew 19:1 says Jesus "left Galilee and went to the district of Judea across the Jordan". The only problem is, Galilee was on the same side of the Jordan as Judea; if you went "across the Jordan" you were in Perea.
Luke 2:2 says that Jesus was born when "Quirinius was governor of Syria"; the problem is that extant Roman records indicate that Publius Sulpicius Quirinius was legate of Syria from 6 to 7 AD; several years after Jesus was born. If Quirinius was legate of Syria after 4 BC and before 6 AD, then Jesus could not have been born "when Herod was king", as recorded in both Luke 1 and Matthew 2. The Roman legates of Syria from 10 BC to 4 AD do not include Quirinius; so we have a dichotomy.

My purpose is not to discuss accepted canon by both groups its to discuss disputed canon. I would prefer to stick to one.

Whats not in doubt here is the New Testament, to defend deuterocanon you attack the validity of the the New Testament asking me to defend whatever "errors" there may be.

But the point here is the need to be consistent. If we are going to start "judging" biblical books. We must judge them all by the same criteria. Therefore it is quite legitimate to say, "if you want to reject Judith because of "error" x, why do you not reject Esther bcause of similar "error" y?"

I am not saying that the bible is full of inaccuracies. I am saying that it is the habit of modern bible scholarship to judge the bible by secular writings. And where there is a conflict, they judge the Bible to be at fault. However you are using the methods of Liberal scholars to judge the deuterocanonicals, but don't want to use them to judge the rest of the books of Scripture.

 

[Philip]

There is a difference. When an entire text is layed to doubt thats serious, when paul makes a fairly common comment that would be made by you or me, that i cannot remember if i did anything or not, it does not lay doubt to an entire biblical text. No exceptions being made, you find me a statement by a NT author stating that he doubts whether his message is accurate or not and i will eat my shoe.

I understand your point, but I still disagree. I don't see the statement as an admission of doubt. I see it as humility.

It is a valid question, You decided that it would be prudent to compare Judith's sin With Saul, David and Solomon and thats what i was doing. Whether or not you agree with my theology or not doesnt matter, i thought the purpose of this was to discuss it, so that I and anyone else reading it could make an educated decision.

When I said I did not agree with your theology, I meant your interpretation of Blasphemy againts the Holy Spirit. I do not believe that Judith's statements constitute such.

I looked at quite a few different commentaries. My explanation is the most widley held, i didnt pull it out of some dark place. What other contradicitions, none were pointed out to me to look at.

I have no problem with your explanation. I merely wish to point out that efforts have been made to reconcile "errors" in the OT and NT. The same can be done for the Deuterocanon. Off hand, I do not know how the "contradiction" you pointed out is resolved. However, it is not important to me since the detail is not relevent to the message.

Understandable, could you PM them to me?

I will try to collect some. Mind you, I don't think that the "errors" I will point out are actually errors. I merely wish to show that some people raise the same concerns about the Protocanon.

And yes i think any error can be explained away, after all isnt that what apologetics is all about? Whats not in doubt here is the New Testament, to defend deuterocanon you attack the validity of the the New Testament asking me to defend whatever "errors" there may be.

I am definitely not attacking the vailidity of the New Testament. I am trying to point out that there are perceived contradictions thoughout Scripture. I am hoping that your experience in reconciling proported errors in the OT and NT will suggest to you that the proported errors in the Deuterocanon are not actually errors.

 

[Philip]

ON a side note, I know im not going to be able to convince you otherwise that its not, and you know that your not going to be able to convince me it is.

Well, you never know... In truth, I am not try to convince you. Rather, I post in threads like this primarily to provide information to any lurkers who are confused.

So i hope your not taking this personally.

I do not take it personally. Nothing you have said comes even close to offending me. I respectfully disagree with you, but have nothing against you.

 

[d0c markus]

Axion[/size]] But the point here is the need to be consistent. If we are going to start "judging" biblical books. We must judge them all by the same criteria. Therefore it is quite legitimate to say, "if you want to reject Judith because of "error" x, why do you not reject Esther bcause of similar "error" y?"

I am not saying that the bible is full of inaccuracies. I am saying that it is the habit of modern bible scholarship to judge the bible by secular writings. And where there is a conflict, they judge the Bible to be at fault. However you are using the methods of Liberal scholars to judge the deuterocanonicals, but don't want to use them to judge the rest of the books of Scripture.

Havent you been paying attention? When i said the following

"Sometimes i get frustrated with this stuff. We can line dance around stuff all day long and it will never end. My purpose is not to discuss accepted canon by both groups its to discuss disputed canon. I would prefer to stick to one.

And yes i think any error can be explained away, after all isnt that what apologetics is all about? Whats not in doubt here is the New Testament, to defend deuterocanon you attack the validity of the the New Testament asking me to defend whatever "errors" there may be.

If you want to do that make another thread, but lets stick to this one instead of dancing around the issues."

I clearly state its not my intention to get into the problems with the new testament, and i dont disagree with you when you say they should be judged by the same criteria. What i do say is that if you want to do that make a new thread to dicuss them. I wish to stay on subject with the apocrypha.

Liberal Christians are Burger King christians; you know have it your way. They pick what they like and throw out what they dont

I am in extreme agreement with this statement, i am not being liberal at all.

Get out the salt and pepper.

1 Cor 7(v10 -) To the married I give this command (not I but the Lord): A wife must not separate from her husband. (v11) But if she does she must remain unmarried or else be reconciled to her husband. And a husband must not divorce his wife. (v12) To the rest I say this (I, not the Lord): - and the letter continues to its end.

Paul here does not seem convinced that his letter is from the Lord. He states only that verses 10 and 11 come from the Lord. He does not seem at all certain that the rest of his letter is inspired (from the Lord). Is the letter from verse 12 on not inspired?

Its inspired but Paul was also a pastor, Paul distinguishes his advice seperate from what the lord commands which is a very responsible thing to do. The Verse in 2 maccabes does not state anything like that, and Paul doesnt throw an entire text into doubt. So i will keep my shoe on my foot for now!!

Esther also contains "historical and geographical errors" No Queen Esther is known to History. Nor is any Mordechai, or Queen Vashti. Ahasuerus Queen was not deposed, and outlived him. The Land of Agag is unknown at that time...

Daniel contains similar things, for example: Darius the Mede is unknown to history, Belshazzar was not the son of Nebuchadnezzar but of Nabonidus, etc.

The same sort of historical confusion in in Ezra shows King Darius appearing after Xerxes and Artaxerses, although he reigned earlier.

So do we now remove Esther, Daniel and Ezra from the canon?

Further, there are apparent historical errors in the rest of the Bible as well; for example, Matthew 14:3 identifies Herodias as the wife of Herod's brother Philip; Josephus, however, says she was the wife of Herod's other brother Boethus. Matthew 19:1 says Jesus "left Galilee and went to the district of Judea across the Jordan". The only problem is, Galilee was on the same side of the Jordan as Judea; if you went "across the Jordan" you were in Perea.
Luke 2:2 says that Jesus was born when "Quirinius was governor of Syria"; the problem is that extant Roman records indicate that Publius Sulpicius Quirinius was legate of Syria from 6 to 7 AD; several years after Jesus was born. If Quirinius was legate of Syria after 4 BC and before 6 AD, then Jesus could not have been born "when Herod was king", as recorded in both Luke 1 and Matthew 2. The Roman legates of Syria from 10 BC to 4 AD do not include Quirinius; so we have a dichotomy.

Thank You, I will look into those, when i find out i will post a thread.

When I said I did not agree with your theology, I meant your interpretation of Blasphemy againts the Holy Spirit. I do not believe that Judith's statements constitute such.

MT 12:24 But when the Pharisees heard this, they said, "It is only by Beelzebub, the prince of demons, that this fellow drives out demons."

Skip ahead
MT 12:30 "He who is not with me is against me, and he who does not gather with me scatters. 31 And so I tell you, every sin and blasphemy will be forgiven men, but the blasphemy against the Spirit will not be forgiven.

The context of verse 30 correlates back to verse 24, attributing evil to god. If God condems something evil and someone attributes that back to God is that not Blasphemy against the lord?

The murder of the men of Shechem (Gen. 34), an act of violence which is condemned in the Scriptures (cf. Gen. 49:6-7), is commended and is described as an act of God (Judith 9:2-9).

I do not take it personally. Nothing you have said comes even close to offending me. I respectfully disagree with you, but have nothing against you.

Glad to hear, take it easy.

 

[Philip]

MT 12:24 But when the Pharisees heard this, they said, "It is only by Beelzebub, the prince of demons, that this fellow drives out demons."

Skip ahead
MT 12:30 "He who is not with me is against me, and he who does not gather with me scatters. 31 And so I tell you, every sin and blasphemy will be forgiven men, but the blasphemy against the Spirit will not be forgiven.

The context of verse 30 correlates back to verse 24, attributing evil to god. If God condems something evil and someone attributes that back to God is that not Blasphemy against the lord?

The murder of the men of Shechem (Gen. 34), an act of violence which is condemned in the Scriptures (cf. Gen. 49:6-7), is commended and is described as an act of God (Judith 9:2-9).

As I read Genesis 49:6-7, I see Jacob condemning the acts of his sons. I do not see God condemning the act. Judith and Jacob disagree about this situation. This is not blasphemy.

 

[d0c markus]

As I read Genesis 49:6-7, I see Jacob condemning the acts of his sons. I do not see God condemning the act. Judith and Jacob disagree about this situation. This is not blasphemy.

I thought you might say that. And ya did!

I'll talk to ya tommorow, im to stressed to do anything tonight.. Take it easy Guys..

And dont take life forgranted!! you never know when your gonna spin out and smash into a bridge wall... Well goodnight.